wewrite-review

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English

🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

wewrite-review — 编辑、改稿与成稿

wewrite-review — Editing, Revising and Finalizing Drafts

前置

Prerequisites

用户指定文章时检查该文件；否则运行

wewrite run show

，优先读取

artifacts.draft

，并读取

artifacts.brief

、

artifacts.claims

和

artifacts.sources

。旧任务没有初稿产物时才回退

artifacts.article

。管道内先运行

wewrite run step review in_progress

。

完整读取：

text

读取: {skill_dir}/../wewrite-write/references/article-brief.md
读取: {skill_dir}/../wewrite-write/references/editorial-quality.md
读取: {skill_dir}/references/seo-rules.md

用户只说“检查一下”且给了外部文件时，只给报告；主流程、任务内初稿或用户明确说“优化”时，必须直接完成必要修改。

When the user specifies an article, check that file; otherwise, run

wewrite run show

, prioritize reading

artifacts.draft

, and also read

artifacts.brief

artifacts.claims

and

artifacts.sources

. Fall back to

artifacts.article

only when there is no draft artifact for old tasks. First run

wewrite run step review in_progress

in the pipeline.

Full read list:

text

读取: {skill_dir}/../wewrite-write/references/article-brief.md
读取: {skill_dir}/../wewrite-write/references/editorial-quality.md
读取: {skill_dir}/references/seo-rules.md

When the user only says "check it" and provides an external file, only provide a report; when it is part of the main workflow, an in-task draft, or the user explicitly says "optimize", necessary revisions must be completed directly.

审稿与改稿

Review and Revision

1. 对齐任务

1. Task Alignment

检查文章是否真的回答

audience.question

，核心判断是否与

thesis

一致，每节是否推动指定 claim，结尾是否交付

goal.takeaway/action

。无关段落删除，不用漂亮结构掩盖答非所问。

Check whether the article actually answers

audience.question

, whether the core judgment is consistent with

thesis

, whether each section advances the specified claim, and whether the conclusion delivers

goal.takeaway/action

. Delete irrelevant paragraphs, and do not use polished structure to cover up irrelevant answers.

2. 核对事实与个人材料

2. Fact and Personal Material Verification

运行

wewrite sources list --json

，把正文中的具体数字、日期、引述、研究结论和时效性事实逐项对到

claims.yaml

与原始来源。来源不支持时优先补查；查不到就删除、缩小或改成明确的推断。不能用模型记忆补洞。

检查所有第一人称事件、朋友同事、采访、对话、时间地点和感官细节。它们必须来自本次任务明确记录的用户材料；否则属于阻断问题，直接删除或改成非亲历论述。

Run

wewrite sources list --json

, and cross-check specific numbers, dates, quotes, research conclusions, and time-sensitive facts in the text against

claims.yaml

and original sources one by one. When sources do not support the content, prioritize supplementary verification; if it cannot be verified, delete it, narrow its scope, or rewrite it as an explicit inference. Do not use model memory to fill in gaps.

Check all first-person events, friends/colleagues, interviews, conversations, time/location, and sensory details. They must come from user materials explicitly recorded for this task; otherwise, they are blocking issues and should be directly deleted or rewritten as non-firsthand accounts.

3. 五项编辑判断

3. Five-Dimensional Editorial Assessment

按“准确、观点、有用、合声、好读”各评 1-5 分，并列出阻断问题和最多 5 个主要问题：

```
pass
```
：平均分至少 4、单项不低于 3、没有阻断问题。
```
revise
```
：能在现有材料内修正。直接修改后重新执行 1-3，不得只写建议。
```
needs_input
```
：仅限用户明确要求个人故事而材料不足且无法安全换框架。

最多两轮。第二轮仍有问题时，删掉不可靠内容、缩小承诺，生成能通过的可靠版本；不得给未通过的文章贴上“可交付”。通过后把最终正文写入

artifacts.article

。

Rate each of the five dimensions — accuracy, viewpoint, usefulness, voice, and readability — on a scale of 1-5, and list blocking issues and up to 5 major issues:

```
pass
```
: Average score of at least 4, no single dimension below 3, and no blocking issues.
```
revise
```
: Can be corrected within existing materials. Make direct revisions and re-execute steps 1-3; do not only write suggestions.
```
needs_input
```
: Only applicable when the user explicitly requests personal stories but materials are insufficient and the framework cannot be safely adjusted.

Maximum two rounds. If there are still issues in the second round, delete unreliable content, reduce commitments, and generate a reliable version that can pass; do not label unapproved articles as "deliverable". After passing, write the final text to

artifacts.article

4. 标题、摘要与工具提示

4. Title, Abstract and Tool Tips

生成一个主标题、两个准确的备选标题、40 字内摘要和 3-5 个标签。关键词自然出现，不按密度硬塞，也不为打开率虚构数字或承诺。审稿不调用配图。

运行

wewrite score {article_path} --json

。该分数只帮助定位套话、句式过齐和段落节奏风险，不设机械及格线，也不为提分反复重写。

Generate one main title, two accurate alternative titles, an abstract within 40 characters, and 3-5 tags. Keywords should appear naturally, do not stuff them in based on density, and do not fabricate numbers or promises for click-through rates. Illustration allocation is not triggered during review.

Run

wewrite score {article_path} --json

. This score only helps identify risks such as clichés, overly uniform sentence structures, and paragraph rhythm issues; there is no mechanical passing line, and do not rewrite repeatedly just to increase the score.

保存编辑报告

Save Editorial Report

先把编辑判断写为任务目录内临时

assessment.yaml

：

yaml

decision: pass
pass_number: 1
dimensions:
  accuracy: 4
  viewpoint: 4
  usefulness: 4
  voice: 4
  readability: 4
blockers: []
major_issues: []
notes: ""

再生成

artifacts.review_report

：

bash

wewrite content-eval --draft {draft_path} --final {article_path} \
  --assessment {assessment_path} --output {review_report_path} --json

只有报告里的

publishable=true

才能完成审稿。更新任务并标记完成：

bash

wewrite run update --patch '{"editorial":{"decision":"pass","pass_number":1,"publishable":true},"seo":{"title":"...","alt_titles":[],"digest":"...","tags":[],"quality_score":0},"provenance":{"verified_sources":0,"unverified_sources":0}}'
wewrite run step review completed

自检报告用自然语言，最多列 5 个按影响排序的问题，并说明已经怎样修正。没有硬伤就直说正文可以交付；如有需要可再单独配图或排版，不输出大段分数表。

First write the editorial assessment as a temporary

assessment.yaml

file in the task directory:

yaml

decision: pass
pass_number: 1
dimensions:
  accuracy: 4
  viewpoint: 4
  usefulness: 4
  voice: 4
  readability: 4
blockers: []
major_issues: []
notes: ""

Then generate

artifacts.review_report

bash

wewrite content-eval --draft {draft_path} --final {article_path} \
  --assessment {assessment_path} --output {review_report_path} --json

The review can only be completed when

publishable=true

in the report. Update the task and mark it as completed:

bash

wewrite run update --patch '{"editorial":{"decision":"pass","pass_number":1,"publishable":true},"seo":{"title":"...","alt_titles":[],"digest":"...","tags":[],"quality_score":0},"provenance":{"verified_sources":0,"unverified_sources":0}}'
wewrite run step review completed

The self-check report should be in natural language, list up to 5 issues sorted by impact, and explain how they have been corrected. If there are no critical flaws, directly state that the text is deliverable; if needed, separate illustration or typesetting can be arranged later, and do not output lengthy score tables.